Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against impugned order dated 14.11.19 whereby application U/S 12(2) is dismissed against exparte judgment & decree dated 26.2.18.

Summary: Appellate Court should always give proper weight & consideration to the view of the trial court as to credibility of the witnesses and presumption of innocence in favour of accused. High Court would not interfere unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, illegal or leading to Miscarriage of Justice.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 75---Proof of documents by primaryevidence---Photocopy---Suit for declaration---Scope---Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration andrecovery of compensation with the averment that due to earthquake their district wasseriously affected, pursuant to which the government through a notification had categorizedthe affectees in four categories such as totally collapsed house, unrepairable damaged house,repairable damaged house and minor damaged house and that the plaintiffs' houses weretotally collapsed but they were not compensated accordingly---Trial Court decreed the suit---Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal---Validity---Local Commission had reported thatthe plaintiffs' houses had collapsed and were unrepairable---Report of Local Commissionwas not disputed---Defendants had not filed objection on report of Local Commission---Defendants in their written statement had stated that the survey was conducted by the Armybut none from the Army was examined nor was the original survey report exhibited---Meretendering of photocopy of report had no legal value---Judgment passed by Trial Court wasupheld and that of Appellate Court was set aside

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:The case involves a criminal appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Lahore High Court. The appellants were convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following their involvement in a violent incident resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence to establish the appellants' guilt.---Issues:Whether the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether there were any discrepancies in the prosecution's case that undermined its credibility.Whether the sentences imposed by the Lahore High Court were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After a thorough review of the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the Lahore High Court. The Court found that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, was credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also considered the circumstances surrounding the incident, including possible motives, and concluded that the sentences imposed by the High Court were appropriate given the gravity of the offenses committed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Lahore High Court was affirmed.--Citations/Precedents:"MUHAMMAD IQBAL versus THE STATE" (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 222)"AJUN SHAH versus THE STATE" (PLD 1967 Supreme Court 185)

Summary: (a) Interpretation of statutes- -Retrospective effect-Principle-Statute/provision of statute is not to be applied retrospectively in absence of express enactment or necessary intendment, especially where statute/provision of statute affected the vested rights, past and closed transaction or facts or events that have already occurred. Nagina Silk Mill Layallpur v. Income Tax Officer, A-Ward Layallpur and others PLD 1963 SC 322; Province of East Pakistan v. Sharafatullah and 87 others PLD 1970 SC 514 and The Chief Land Commissioner Sindh and others v. Ghulam Haider Shah and others 1988 SCMR 715 rel. (b) Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002- -Reglns. 5-2.23 & 18-4.1-Karachi Development Authority Order (V of 1957), Art.52-A [as inserted by Karachi Development Authority (Sindh Amendment) Act (XXIII of1994)]-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199-Constitutional petition-Retrospective effect of amendment-Scope-Conversion of amenity plot into residential-Registered deed, cancellation of-Procedure-Petitioners were aggrieved of action of Karachi Development Authority (KDA) which intended to demolish the construction raised by petitioners on the land in question-Plea raised by petitioners was that the land in question was reserved for amusement park but subsequently in year 1973 its status was converted to residential-Validity-Amendment of Art. 52 of KDA Order, 1957, could not be applied where conversion of amenity plot/land in question took place prior to introduction of that amendment-Provisions of Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, were promulgated much after conversion of the land in question-When the land in question was converted from amusement park to housing scheme there was no prohibition under the law-Land in question was converted into housing scheme after approval of competent authorities who were fully empowered to do so-Karachi Development Authority/ Karachi Metropolitan Corporation or any other authority did not challenge sub-lease deeds in favour of petitioners at any forum and the same were intact-On the basis of said sub-lease, petitioners had acquired rights in the land in question, which could not be denied or stretched at the whim and wish of any department-Sub-lease deeds in favour of petitioners were registered documents and the same could be cancelled by declaration of Court of competent jurisdiction and not unilaterally by the authorities by the condemning the petitioners unheard-All actions regarding housing scheme were with the approval of concerned authorities and were also endorsed by earlier decision of High Court with the directions to the authorities not to initiate any demolition action and further not to take any coercive action against petitioners-Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly. Moulvi Iqbal Haider v. Capital Development Authority and others PLD 2006 SC 394; Abdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others PLD 1994 SC 512; Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority and 4 others 1999 SCMR 2883; Mrs. Farah Hamayun Shehzad Baloch v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and 3 others 2014 CLC 1158; Syed Ali Asghar and 3 others v. Creators (Builders) and 3 others 2001 SCMR 279 and Muhammad Ali and 25 others v. Hassan Muhammad and 6 others PLD 1994 SC 245 ref. Mrs. Zaibun Nisa through Attorney v. Karachi Development Authority and 5 others PLD 1998 Kar. 348 and Messrs Ahmed Clinic v. Government of Sindh and others 2003 CLC 1196 rel. Saifuddin for PECHS. Dates of hearing: 5th August, 2019 and 7th March, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 1. Had the FIR been registered, then definitely the inquest report would be definitely bear the F.I.R number as section of law.2. The complainant did not identify the dead body of his brother before the police at the time when the inquest report was prepared and thereafter, had he been present in the police station when the police was preparing the inquest report, he would have been figured in the column of identification.3. Withholding of the best available evidence speaks nothing but that had he been produced he would not have supported the charge of the complainant against the convict/appellant.4. We know that prosecution is not bound to set up motive in every case but once it is alleged and not proved, then ocular account is required to be scrutinized with great caution.